The Oboe BBoard

The Oboe BBoard The C4 standard

New Topic | Go to Top | Go to Topic | Search | Help/Rules | Smileys/Notes | Log In

Re: Physics

Author: mschmidt
Date: 2007-08-17 04:48

Science can deal with the "crap shoot" aspect of reed making; there are whole branches of science that depend on random variations. You may not be able to specify the various moduli of cane to 3 significant figures, because of random variations in the plants, the seasoning, and the treatment of cane. That's not really what I'm talking about; what I'm talking about is how we understand the things we do to make good reeds.

A good reed maker can consistently get a high yield of reeds even in the face of natural variations in the cane. Another good reed maker can make reeds differently and still get a good yield. Both reed makers have done a trial-and-error process that has gotten them to a winning strategy, and most likely, some aspects of this strategy are not even concious.

What I am wondering is this: might there might be a deeper understanding possible that not only explains why the two (or two-thousand) different practical strategies work, but that might be able to guide students in developing their own personal practical strategy? I'm sure I'm not the only oboe student who has been told by one teacher an "absolute rule" of reedmaking only to find another teacher who directly contradicts that rule. Obviously, these are really practical rules, not absolute rules--they are just part of an overall strategy that works. If we understood the physics of reedmaking more clearly, we might be able to help people understand more quickly how they can develop their own reedmaking style that works.

Different cultures have developed different practical strategies for building shelters. Each strategy has its own rules. After Newton, we could understand why each of those strategies worked, and could understand why the practical rules for one strategy aren't the practical rules for another. What is more, once we had the fundamental understandings of mechanics, we could go on to design structures that could NEVER have been achieved by trial-and-error.

I'm not saying we need to design wonderful new sorts of reeds that make new sounds (though some people might be interested in that). I'm just saying that a little physical knowledge could go a long way towards helping people worry more about the things that do matter and less about the things that don't. To use a different analogy--understanding mechanisms of disease means we don't have to spend our time and money on leeches.

After writing this post I went back and re-read Mark Charette's post and realized that he is saying almost exactly the same thing, in a much more condensed version!

Mike

Still an Amateur, but not really middle-aged anymore

Post Edited (2007-08-17 04:58)

Reply To Message | Avail. Forums | Flat View

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Topics